BHADRA RYOTS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. v. STATE OF MYSORE
1970-06-15
HONNAIH, NARAYANA PAI
body1970
DigiLaw.ai
( 1 ) AGAINST an order made under S. 30 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Shimoga, superseding the Managing Committee of the petitioner society, the petitioner presented an appeal to the State Government. The State Government rejected the same on the ground that the appeal does not lie to it. In this writ petition, the said view taken by the Government is challenged as incorrect by the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE section conferring the right of appeal is S. 106. Sub-sec. (1) enumerates various orders in respect of which right of appeal is conferred. One of them is an order of the Registrar removing the Committee of a co-operative Society made under Sec. 30. The appellate authorities are enumerated in sub-sec. (2) which reads:" (2) An appeal against any act, decision or order under sub- sec. (1) shall be made within sixty days from the date of the act, decision or order,- (a) if the act, decision or order was made by the Registrar, to the state Government; (b) if the act, decision or order was made by any other officer, to that officer's immediate superior officer. " ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the order in this case was made by the Deputy Registrar, Mr. Manjappa for the petitioner contends that it must be read as an order made by the Registrar himself and described in sub-sec. (1) of S. 106, because clause (i) of S. 2 defines a Registrar as inclusive of various officers among whom is a Deputy Registrar when they exercise all or any of the powers of the Registrar. The power of supersession under S. 30 is expressly conferred on the Registrar. When, therefore, a Deputy Registrar makes an order under the said section, the argument continues, the order must be read as an order of the Registrar himself because the Deputy Registrar while making the order is undoubtedy exercising one of the powers of the Registrar. ( 4 ) THE only weakness in this argument is that definitions are to be applied 'unless the context otherwise requires'. In our opinion, the context of sub-sec.
( 4 ) THE only weakness in this argument is that definitions are to be applied 'unless the context otherwise requires'. In our opinion, the context of sub-sec. (2) of S. 106 clearly requires otherwise, because clause (a) mentions the Registrar and clause (b) mentions any other officer; in the context the word 'registrar' undoubtedly means Registrar alone and not any other officer who is deemed to be Registrar or is brought within the definition of the term Registrar because he is exercising any of the functions of the Registrar. ( 5 ) THESE various officers including the Deputy Registrar are officers whose appointment is permitted under S. 2a. Sub-sec. (2) thereof expressly states that the Government may appoint various officers called Additional registrar, Joint-Registrar, Deputy Registrar, and Assistant Registrar. Under sub-sec. (5) the Government is empowered, by general or special order, to confer on any one of the officers so appointed all or any of the powers of the Registrar. Under sub-sec. (4), the Government is empowered to determine the officer or officers to whom each officer appointed under the Act shall be subordinate. ( 6 ) BY a notification No. SO. 123 dated 4-1-1967 made under sub-sec. (5) of S. 2a, the Government conferred specified powers of the Registrar upon specified officers. The power of the Registrar under S. 30, is conferred upon a Deputy Registrar. ( 7 ) UNDER another notification No. DPC. 105 CCS. 65 dated 28-6-1966 made under sub-sec. (4) of S. 2a, the Government determined that a deputy Registrar shall be subordinate to the Joint Registrar. ( 8 ) THE result of all these statutory provisions and notifications thereunder, is that the order of the Deputy Registrar in this case must be read as an order of the Deputy Registrar and not that of the Registrar and therefore an order made by an officer subordinate to the Joint Registrar. The proper appellate authority would be the Joint Registrar. ( 9 ) THE Government were therefore right in the view that the appeal in this case did not lie to it. The writ petition is dismssed. --- *** --- .